Showing posts with label That's Your Liberal Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label That's Your Liberal Media. Show all posts

National Press Largely Fails to Cover Pro-Immigrant Protests

[Content Note: Nativism.]

Earlier this month, I noted the lack of national coverage of protests around the U.S. against the Trump Regime's immigration horrors. There were lots of local news stories, but a dearth of coverage in national media outlets, including cable news.

I noted at the time: "The next time you see someone snorting about how people in the U.S. aren't 'out in the streets,' tell them that people are out in the streets. The more urgent question is why our national press doesn't cover it."

Last weekend, Lights for Liberty organized more than 700 events and/or vigils across the nation, often in coalition with local organizers like Pennsylvania's Shut Down Berks Coalition or national groups like Never Again Action, in protest of Donald Trump's vile nativist agenda.

More than 700 protests.

And virtually all of the news coverage is, once again, local media. The biggest story I could find was this item in USA Today, which was still just a piece on the local D.C. vigil, mentioning only in passing that it was part of nationwide protests numbering in the hundreds.

Today, Never Again Action is "shutting down every entry point to the Department of Homeland Security, the agency that is responsible for this terror against the immigrant community."


This should be front-page news. It should be leading the headlines on cable networks. Instead, I only know about it at all because I'm on Twitter and have friends on Twitter who are following these actions, too.

Maybe you are only hearing about it here for the first time. That shouldn't be the case.

There are people around this country who are writing who are tweeting who are chanting who are marching in solidarity with migrants and refugees being detained in deplorable conditions at facilities at the southern border and elsewhere; who are resisting this regime's heinous nativist policies of purposeful malice. And the political press is virtually silent.

We are meant instead to be debating whether Donald Trump is really a racist.

There could be no more insulting obfuscation and distraction as people demand justice and relief from his white supremacist agenda.

Look for stories in your local news. Share them. Raise awareness of this resistance. Find ways to participate, if you are able and feel safe doing so.

If the national press won't make any noise, then we must.

Open Wide...

We Resist: Day 888

a black bar with the word RESIST in white text

One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures (plus the occasional non-Republican who obliges us to resist their nonsense, too, like we don't have enough to worry about) is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.

So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.

Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.

* * *

Late yesterday and earlier today by me: Keep Expecting MORE, Because It's Who You Are and Nativist Wreck Mark Morgan Appointed Acting Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection and Primarily Speaking.

Here are some more things in the news today...

[Content Note: Nativism; abuse]


I think we can all agree that if sitting senators are being disallowed from scrutinizing the conditions at "detention facilities" across the country, the situation is even more grim than we have imagined. Sob.

Rachael Bade, Matt Zapotosky, and Karoun Demirjian at the Washington Post: Mueller to Testify to Congress in Open Session About His Investigation. "Former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will testify to Congress in a public session next month about his investigation of Russia's interference in the 2016 presidential campaign and possible obstruction of justice by [Donald] Trump, a reluctant witness long sought by House Democrats. The House Judiciary and Intelligence committees, in an announcement late Tuesday, said that 'pursuant to a subpoena,' Mueller has agreed to appear before both panels on July 17."

For fuck's sake, he should be testifying now. He shouldn't even have had to be subpoenaed to say whatever he knows, even at his own personal risk. There are people dying in concentration camps and out in the open along the southern border, and if that isn't urgent enough to light a fire under this guy's ass, then nothing ever will.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump now has nearly a month to leverage the power of his office to try to discredit (and publicly intimidate) Mueller, which naturally has already begun.


I'm not even going to attempt a transcript of that spittle-flecked nonsense. All you need to know is that Trump, on the phone live with Fox News, just accused Mueller, without evidence, of having deleted incendiary emails and texts between his team members (Lisa Page and Peter Strzok) in order to try to frame Trump for collusion.

He is unhinged, and it is frightening.

In addition to the fact that Trump is abusing his bully pulpit to try to discredit a federal investigator, i.e. obstruction, one thing that strikes me about this is that, unlike lots of times when Trump is obviously just lying to manipulate the press and his base, and you can hear the smugness in his voice indicating his delight at getting away with it, here he sounds authentically paranoid.

Which makes him way more dangerous, for a start, and also suggests he is truly losing what precious little mental stability he ever had.

We are in so much trouble.

During the same 45-minute phone call to Fox News, because the president has nothing better to do (as Mike Pence, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Stephen Miller, and Jared Kushner are running the country), Trump also further laid the groundwork for refusing to accept the 2020 election results (in the event he doesn't win):


He also made another reference to how he doesn't leave yesterday, in the context of a possible war with Iran, but the subtext once again wasn't very sub:


And the rampaging authoritarianism rampages onward...

Jamie Ross at the Daily Beast: NSA Collected U.S. Phone Records without Authorization — Again. "The National Security Agency has once again collected records about U.S. calls and text messages that it wasn't authorized to obtain, according to a report from The Wall Street Journal. In a second such incident, the NSA wrongly collected the numbers and time stamps of calls and text messages in October of last year — though it reportedly didn't obtain the content of the conversations. The documents showing the previously undisclosed move were obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union."

Jennifer Jacobs and Daniel Flatley at Bloomberg: Trump's Protocol Chief Is Quitting Just Before the G-20 Summit. "The Trump administration official in charge of diplomatic protocol plans to resign and isn't going to Japan for this week's Group of 20 meetings, where he would have played a sensitive behind-the-scenes role, according to people familiar with the matter. Sean Lawler, a State Department official whose title is chief of protocol, is departing amid a possible inspector general's probe into accusations of intimidating staff and carrying a whip in the office, according to one of the people." Fucking hell.


[CN: White supremacy; nativism] Richard L. Hasen at Slate: The Census Case Is Shaping Up to Be the Biggest Travesty Since Bush v. Gore. "The government's conduct in the pending Supreme Court case about adding a citizenship question to the census has gone from indefensible to outrageous. In the case, which is likely to be decided this week, Solicitor General Noel Francisco on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to become complicit in a cover-up of discriminatory activity by doing something the court does not and cannot do: decide a legal issue that is not before it. If the court does so, any pretense of the legitimacy of the decision will be gone."

ICYMI yesterday: Stephanie Grisham, who is Melania Trump's communications director, will replace Sarah Huckabee Sanders as White House Press Secretary. The pool from which Trump is willing to draw his authoritarian sycophants keeps getting smaller and smaller — and Grisham seems like a real peach...

Antonia Noori Farzan at the Washington Post: New White House Press Secretary Yanked Arizona Reporters' Access After Critical Coverage. "Grisham asked members of the Arizona press corps to consent to what Stephenson called an 'invasive' background check into reporters' addresses, driving records, and criminal and civil histories. Journalists could decline, but if they did, they would be banned from the state's House floor, which was the only place to reliably buttonhole lawmakers."

So there's a new White House Press Secretary who has a history of punishing reporters for critical coverage and meanwhile reporters are partying with the outgoing Press Secretary, because everything is terrible:


So, if the Republicans in Congress are unwilling to hold Donald Trump accountable for anything, and the Special Counsel seems inclined to testify only to distance himself from the appearance of doing nothing while migrant children die, and a significant portion of the political press has their mouths too full of cake from a party with White House Nazis to speak truth to power, is there any glimmer of hope that Trump will face consequences for anything ever?

Well, here's one glimmer: A judge has ruled that Democrats' suit against Trump for violations of the emolument clause can move forward. The House Judiciary Democrats have a statement on the important ruling here.

Hold onto that glimmer as we move to this final bit...

[CN: Sexual violence] In a great piece for Slate on E. Jean Carroll's rape accusation against Donald Trump, Lili Loofbourow writes: "Of the allegations against Trump, Carroll's is among the most serious, and while she isn't the first to publish a first-person account (Natasha Stoynoff did, too) her approach is startlingly frank. ...By not saying the ordinary or expected things, Carroll tells the story of her rape differently. The lack of coverage it received despite or because of her efforts is evidence that survivors understand perfectly well that there are no good options."

And it is not just the lack of coverage that is a scandal all its own, despite Carroll's brave telling: Only two Republican Senators, Joni Ernst (herself a survivor) and Mitt Romney, have said the allegation should be investigated; others are saying flatly that they disbelieve her and/or are engaging in rank rape apologia; and one Democratic member of Congress, Rep. Jackie Speier, has called for a formal investigation but "questions remain over which committee might have jurisdiction over such a matter."

I said many times during the 2016 election that the contest between a history-making feminist female candidate and a confessed serial sex abuser was a referendum on how the United States values women. And we certainly have our answer.

What have you been reading that we need to resist today?

Open Wide...

Primarily Speaking

image of a cartoon version of me looking at Twitter on my mobile phone and reacting with horror, while standing in front of a patriotic stars-and-stripes graphic, to which I've added text reading: 'The Democratic Primary 2020: Let's do this thing.'

Welcome to another edition of Primarily Speaking, because presidential primaries now begin fully one million years before the election!

If you're like me, you CAN'T WAIT until the Democratic debates start literally a year and a half before Election Day, so you'll be super excited to hear that we've finally got some BIG NEWS on that subject! "The first Democratic debate of the 2020 presidential primary will be held on June 26 and 27 in Miami, NBC News, the host of the debate, announced on Thursday. MSNBC and Telemundo will also host. Details on the venue, moderators, and timing will be announced at a later date, NBC News said in a release."

Yep, that's right! It will be held over the course of two nights, because there are so many people running! I bet you're wondering how they'll pick who will be on the debate stage which night, and that's where things get really terrific!
The Democratic National Committee previously said the lineups for each debate will be chosen at random, not strictly from how candidates are ranked in polls. To qualify, a candidate will need to either have at least 1 percent support in three qualifying polls, or provide evidence of at least 65,000 unique donors, with a minimum of 200 different donors in at least 20 states. Already, more than a dozen Democratic candidates have launched presidential bid while other big names, like former Vice President Joe Biden, appear poised to enter the race.

If more than 20 candidates reach one of those two qualifications, the top 20 will be selected by using a separate method that rewards contenders for meeting both thresholds, followed by highest polling averages, and then the most unique donors.
DEMOCRACY!

*jumps into Christmas tree*

* * *

Yesterday, Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan, who oversaw the bank through a series of scams and frauds, resigned. Senator Elizabeth Warren responded to the news by tweeting: "About damn time." LOL!


Hey, speaking of Warren, her proposal to take on Big Agriculture was so good that Senator Bernie Sanders decided to push the party left by making the same case she did, except not as well and without the detailed proposal. Thanks, Bernie!

I appreciate Julián Castro's willingness to say forthrightly that Donald Trump is a liar: "The American people deserve to see what is in that report. And the truth is, unfortunately, that this administration has fudged the truth or outright lied or made exaggerations so many times that why would we believe them on this most blockbuster report about the president." Good point!

Oh boy, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is really not endearing himself to me with more of this stuff:


There is a lot wrong with that — like the fact that many marginalized people have no interest in "talking through" with Trump voters why they hate us, and that is a valid choice — but I can't even abide listening to someone suggest that people on the coasts don't believe Trump voters actually exist, because FUCK YOU my next door neighbor is a Trump voter, and I had to look at his Trump yard sign and be reminded that my next door neighbor thinks sexual assault is A-OK for months. I couldn't forget or disbelieve that Trump voters exist if I wanted to.

This type of "unity" politics in which people who are targeted by conservatives' cruel policies and interpersonal hatred are admonished to try to better understand the people who hate us has just never resonated with me, and it is even less appealing in an age of reemergent Nazism.

And, yes, I realize that Buttigieg is himself targeted by the same folks as a gay man, and he is welcome to want to "reach out" to his oppressors if that's his choice, but I'm not interested and that is my choice.

Speaking of Nazis, Politico thought it was a good idea to publish a piece about who Steve Bannon thinks would make for the strongest Democratic ticket. (Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke.) So, you know, that's where the political press is. Really learned a lot of good lessons from 2016.

Senators Kamala Harris and Cory Booker will address LGBTQ activists at a major Human Rights Campaign dinner in Los Angeles this weekend.

And Beto O'Rourke stood on some more stuff:


John Hickenlooper is still definitely running for president.

Talk about these things! Or don't. Whatever makes you happy. Life is short.

Open Wide...

Stop Trying to Make "Partisan Prejudice" Happen

[Content Note: Bigotry.]

What is the moral imperative Americans have to "tolerate" people with with different political views than us, and in what contexts does this imperative extend?

The Atlantic ran a series of pieces last week on the concept of partisan prejudice implicitly arguing that Democrats ought to broadly "tolerate" Republicans in virtually all spheres of life, and vice versa.

In the first piece, "U.S. Counties Vary by Their Degree of Partisan Prejudice," Amanda Ripley, Rekha Tenjarla, and Angela Y. He discussed a ranking of US counties on purported "partisan prejudice." It begins (emphasis added):

We know that Americans have become more biased against one another based on partisan affiliation over the past several decades. Most of us now discriminate against members of the other political side explicitly and implicitly—in hiring, dating, and marriage, as well as judgments of patriotism, compassion, and even physical attractiveness, according to recent research.
So, right away the stage is set by conflating structural, sometimes-illegal discrimination (hiring) with personal preferences (romance, personal judgments, and perceptions of attractiveness), even though these types of "discrimination" are of different types. It is not discrimination, for instance, at least in the legal sense of making an unjust, unlawful distinction, for us to hold personal marriage standards, or even to think poorly of those who hold different political beliefs than us.

Yet, the authors don't interrogate the notion that "discrimination" in public and private spheres of life is in any way different, which invites readers to assume that all "discrimination" is bad all the time, because it's "intolerant."

The authors go on to assert that, after reviewing results from a survey of 2,000 adults, "the most politically intolerant Americans, according to the analysis, tend to be whiter, more highly educated, older, more urban, and more partisan themselves."

(This is called foreshadowing).

Now, take a look at the questions the survey posed, which can be found at PredictWise's blog:
  1. How would you react if a member of your immediate family married a Democrat?
  2. How would you react if a member of your immediate family married a Republican?
  3. How well does the term 'Patriotic' describe Democrats?
  4. How well does the term 'Selfish' describe Democrats?
  5. How well does the term 'Willing to compromise' describe Democrats?
  6. How well does the term 'Compassionate' describe Democrats?
  7. How well does the term 'Patriotic' describe Republicans?
  8. How well does the term 'Selfish' describe Republicans?
  9. How well does the term 'Willing to compromise' describe Republicans?
  10. How well does the term 'Compassionate' describe Republicans?
  11. How do you feel about the Republican Party today?
  12. How do you feel about the Democratic Party today?
  13. How do you feel about Democratic voters today?
  14. How do you feel about Republican voters today?
When I read this list, I wonder, is the survey truly measuring "intolerance" or something else? Like, say, reasonable perceptions of others based on their electoral support of political candidates who enact specific policies that impact human beings and society? Or, perhaps, some combination of the above plus perceptions of others based on media representations and distortions, personal interactions, and more?

It seems to be measuring something more complicated than "intolerance," both because intolerance suggests that people hold their beliefs unreasonably, and because of an important distinction between the political right and left in the United States, which I'll discuss momentarily.

Nonetheless, the results from these 2,000 surveys were then projected onto the hundreds of millions of people in the U.S., as follows:
Based on the survey results, Tobias Konitzer, the co-founder of PredictWise, investigated which demographic characteristics seemed to correlate with partisan prejudice. He found, for example, that age, race, urbanicity, partisan loyalty, and education did coincide with more prejudice (but gender did not). In this way, he created a kind of profile of contemporary partisan prejudice.

Next, Konitzer projected this profile onto the broader American population, under the assumption that people with similar demographics and levels of partisan loyalty, living in neighborhoods with comparable amounts of political diversity, tend to hold similar attitudes about political difference. He did this using voter files acquired by PredictWise from TargetSmart, a commercial vendor.
Did you know your voter file might be used in this way? Do you know what a voter file is and how data companies use them? Here's some background.

A companion piece was then published at The Atlantic, by Amanda Ripley, about Watertown, New York, entitled, "The Least Politically Prejudiced Place in America." From Ripley's piece (emphasis added):
...Watertown[, New York] is notable for another reason, officially unrecognized until now. It is located in one of the most politically tolerant counties in America, according to a first-of-its-kind analysis conducted for The Atlantic by PredictWise. Using an original national poll, voter-registration files, and other large data sets, PredictWise determined that Jefferson County and several nearby counties in the North Country are distinct from other parts of America. (See the accompanying story for more details about this analysis.) These are places where people can disagree on politics but still, it appears, give one another the benefit of the doubt.

Watertown is the seat of Jefferson County, a generally conservative place, which Trump won by 20 percentage points in 2016.
The U.S. Census population estimate of Watertown is 25,687, and 83% white.

Boom, and there it is.

What a gift this piece is to Republicans, especially Trump supporters, even if that wasn't necessarily the intent of the authors (I have no idea and won't speculate)!

To many Republicans, a conclusion like this very clearly affirms a worldview, and frequent talking point, that liberal elites in the big cities are the real bigots, particularly toward small-town conservative white people. Indeed, conservative blogger Rod Dreher, never one to pass up an opportunity to re-affirm this victim mentality, exclaimed just that about these Atlantic pieces:
What stood out the most to me, though, is that the people who are in charge of the media, and our cultural institutions, and the ones who bang on the most about 'diversity,' are pretty much extremely intolerant, monocultural white liberals. Whatever else you might say about him, Trump has these people figured out.
Of course. As I wrote last year:
It has long been part of the conservative playbook to leverage liberal and progressive values against us, so that we are so busy proving that we are consistent with certain abstract principles that we don't stop to question whether those principles should or should not be applicable to the situation at hand.
Here, the principle at hand is "tolerance," and many mainstream media journalists, desperately trying to appear neutral and objective, often play right into this game in their quest for appropriate balance. Consider this moral equivalence, from the writer of the Watertown, New York piece:
Meanwhile, everyone knew about the one kid at the school whose parents had voted for Trump. And that child knew they knew. Despite all the talk about tolerance and inclusion in my neighborhood, no one was in the mood to learn from this family. A few months after the election, the family packed up and moved to Florida.

That's one of the diabolical things about political prejudice. It is contagious.
Ah yes, despite all the talk about so-called tolerance and inclusion, nobody wanted to "learn" anything from the people who supported Donald Trump, who has admitted on tape to grabbing women's genitals without their consent, who led a racist birther movement against the nation's first Black president, who continues to lead "lock her up rallies" about the first woman to win the nomination of a major political party in the U.S., who is starkly unqualified for the office he holds, who possibly colluded with a foreign country to "win" an election, and continues to lead a xenophobic campaign against immigrants.

Check-mate, libs! Although, in this case, the author herself seems to be liberal, and urging us to be more compassionate toward Trump supporters, because that's the objective thing to do?

But, with all due respect who, pray tell, is anyone to tell me that I have things to learn from anyone who voted for all that Donald Trump represents? To the contrary, I argue that it is incumbent upon us to expose such false equivalences, with their implicit arguments that "both sides are just as bad," for what they are: False, offensive, and dangerous.

I refuse to heed calls to "learn" from Republicans particularly from anyone who is unwilling or unable to acknowledge the reality that Republicans are increasingly basing their political worldviews on complete falsehoods, often amplified to millions of people by Fox News.

Per Jane Mayer's recent in-depth profile of the ties between Trump's Republican Administration and Fox:
[Harvard Law School Professor Yochai] Benkler's assessment [of Fox News] is based on an analysis of millions of American news stories that he and two co-authors, Robert Faris and Hal Roberts, undertook for their 2018 book, Network Propaganda: Manipulation, Disinformation and Radicalization in American Politics. Benkler told me that he and his co-authors had expected to find "symmetric polarization" in the left-leaning and the right-leaning media outlets. Instead, they discovered that the two poles of America's media ecosystem function very differently. "It's not the right versus the left," Benkler says. "It's the right versus the rest."

Most American news outlets try to adhere to facts. When something proves erroneous, they run corrections, or, as Benkler and his co-authors write, "they check each other." Far-left Web sites post as many bogus stories as far-right ones do, but mainstream and liberal news organizations tend to ignore suspiciously extreme material. Conservative media outlets, however, focus more intently on confirming their audience's biases, and are much more susceptible to disinformation, propaganda, and outright falsehoods (as judged by neutral fact-checking organizations such as PolitiFact). Case studies conducted by the authors show that lies and distortions on the right spread easily from extremist Web sites to mass-media outlets such as Fox, and only occasionally get corrected.

When falsehoods are exposed, core viewers often react angrily.
I understand the impulse to express concern about partisan rancor "these days" and that some people might want to snap others out of it by pushing for a "can't we all just get along" model of civility. But, I think a lot about the in-fighting on the moderate-to-left side of the political spectrum, which feels especially bad now. It seems that many on the left argue so much with each other, in part, because arguing with people on the right can feel so completely hopeless given that we are often living within completely different realities or "realities," as the case may be.

The partisan divides in the U.S. are enormous, structural, and deliberately stoked by politicians and foreign agents alike. So much so that it's actually pretty offensive to think that individualistic solutions like calls to learn things from an 83% white, rural Trump-supporting town is really getting at the crux of the enormous divides in our nation. It's just a larger-scale version of that never-ending stream of  post-2016 "Trump supporters in a diner" pieces, except now I guess we're doing that with towns.

And sure, the political and civic change starts with all of us trying to be better, more decent people, but I think it's wiser — and more just particularly to the marginalized — to balance calls for civility with both personal safety and what's ultimately best for society as a whole. I think it's remarkably dangerous to promote this notion that we must "tolerate" — even in our personal lives — those who traffic in and spread misinformation and bigotry under this purported social good of "partisan tolerance," because ultimately such calls for tolerance are really calls to settle for injustice in order to keep the peace.

Open Wide...

The Political Press Vows to Be Hot Garbage in 2020

The political press has never done any kind of meaningful reflecting on their magnificent failures during the 2016 election. That's not to say they didn't learn any lessons, though. They just learned the wrong ones. Like: Being wildly irresponsible makes us lots of money.

And so they are fixing to replicate, and double down on, the failures that cost us so much during the last presidential election.

To wit, Maxwell Tani at the Daily Beast: CNN Defends Hiring Former GOP Operative Sarah Isgur as Political Editor.

CNN is standing by its decision to hire a former Department of Justice spokesperson and political operative with no journalistic experience to help lead its 2020 political coverage.

On Tuesday, Politico first reported that Sarah Isgur was joining the network as a politics editor, sparking fierce backlash from many who said she was unqualified and not suited for the job.

In a note to the network's politics team Wednesday, several top politics editors said that although they were upset that the news leaked out before it could be announced internally, the company was "thrilled" that Isgur was joining next month, saying she "brings a wealth of government, political, communications, and legal experience to our team."

The note, signed by Washington Bureau Chief Sam Feist, Newsgathering Vice President Virginia Mosley, and Political Director David Chalian, clarified Isgur's new role, saying she would spend the first few months "getting to know our systems and our people," and eventually would "play a coordinating role in our daily political coverage — helping to organize and communicate between newsgathering, digital, and television."

"With more than two dozen candidates to cover, constant coordination is needed more than ever," it said.
Never mind that "Can Isgur even effectively coordinate?!" wasn't at the center of anyone's criticisms. Who gives a single fuck if she can coordinate like the wind. The problem is that she is a former Republican political operative with zero evident qualifications for the position.

Democrats are already at a disadvantage, media-wise, and not just because the political press skews heavily white, male, and conservative: They're running against an incumbent president, who will exclusively suck up all the attention for the Republican field, while multiple Democrats divide press attention on the opposing side.

(And the bigger that Democratic field gets, the tinier sliver of attention each candidate will be obliged to fight for.)

That CNN is now appointing a Republican operative to coordinate coverage of an election that mightily favors the Republican candidate is a big problem for Democrats. And anyone else who values trying to protect the shredded vestiges of our democracy.

CNN learned entirely the wrong lesson from 2016. And Donald Trump's takeaway is that the more he bullies and attacks news outlets, the more willing they will be to pander to him and his party. Terrific.

Open Wide...

We Are Being Gaslighted About the Gaslighter-in-Chief

One of the top political stories leading the news this morning is a piece in the New York Times headlined: "Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns over Russia."

Except...that is not breaking news.

As I noted on Twitter: "It's not news that Trump wants to leave NATO. He's been saying that since he started running. It was one of the key pieces of evidence that he was Putin's puppet. But people who have been connecting these dots for YEARS have been dismissed as hysterics as conspiracy theorists."

Here, for example, is me writing about Trump, his NATO position, and how it's a gift to Putin in May of 2017:

Trump is working very hard to undermine goodwill with our NATO allies, with a special insult to Germany. Since the end of WWII, Russia has had an explicit objective of busting up the U.S.-German alliance, because the combined strength of the U.S. and Germany, in both military might and democratic cultural influence, provided a check on the empiric aspirations of the Soviet Union, now Russia. Trump's subversion of the U.S-Germany relationship is providing a dangerous opening to Putin, who has already made abundantly clear his intent to rebuild Russia's reach with his annexation of Crimea and moves in Ukraine.
And a year later, during the NATO summit in Brussels, June of 2018:
Trump's strategy appears to be: Continue to tell lies about the structure of NATO to underwrite demands that NATO members will not possibly meet, because they are absurd, then use their refusal to justify the United States' withdrawal from NATO. I hope I'm wrong about that, and fear that I'm not.

In the meantime, however, he is without question doing the most to weaken the United States' alliance with Germany, which is a massive gift to Putin. With whom he will meet after the summit.
And two years earlier, in July of 2016, after Trump told the New York Times' Maggie Haberman that "he and Putin share a disdain for NATO" and "openly questioned whether the U.S., under his leadership, would keep its commitments to the alliance": "It's terribly concerning that there are so many U.S. voters who won't hear about this, won't understand it, won't care. We really are in uncharted waters, and they are incredibly stormy. Stormy enough to sink a ship of state."

That was before the election in which he became president (with Russia's help). That Trump has questioned the U.S.'s role in the NATO alliance is literally older than his presidency. It was one of the primary arguments against it!

Anyway. This is like the third "BREAKING!" story in the past few days that is not even breaking a little bit. This is fucking gaslighting on an epic scale.

What a gift to the gaslighter-in-chief.

Open Wide...

Democrats Will Present Rebuttal to Trump Tonight

The bad news: All the major networks have committed to allowing Donald Trump free airtime tonight to disgorge his obscene lies about immigrants and the imagined danger they pose at the southern border.

The good news: The Democrats have demanded equal time to deliver a rebuttal, and, so far, "CBS, NBC, and CNN have said they will carry the response."

The Democrats haven't yet announced who will deliver the rebuttal. My fervent wish is that it's Senator Mazie Hirono.

No matter who does it, though, it's going to be impossible for them to get as much traction as the president, whose lies will be broadcast and re-broadcast and repeated in headlines and dissected by cable news panels for days on end.

Which is why the networks should never have granted him this time in the first place, knowing that he would use it just to promulgate a hateful agenda designed to engender manufactured fear and violent prejudice. They are assisting him with his campaign of stochastic terrorism, allowing themselves to be enlisted as conspirators in his war on immigrants.

And there is precedent — very recent and relevant precedent — for turning down a president who requests airtime: In 2014, President Barack Obama requested airtime for a speech on immigration and was turned down by every network.

But the rules were always different for Obama — and the rules are different for Trump. This is, after all, the candidate whose empty podium got $billions of free airtime during the election. (And gets it still.)

There are people calling for a boycott of Trump's address this evening. I understand that. The thing is, because Trump has now been granted the highly visible platform he was seeking, he's more likely to use it to maximum effect. With Trump, there's always a chance he's going to scream at everyone to look at him only to waste our time, but, given the current environment, his announcing a national emergency is a significant possibility. And boycotting the speech isn't going to change that.

So, don't watch it if you don't want to watch it. Watch it if you want to, without feeling shamed by people making a different choice. Whatever feels best to you. Life is short.

Open Wide...

We Resist: Day 713

a black bar with the word RESIST in white text

One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures (plus the occasional non-Republican who obliges us to resist their nonsense, too, like we don't have enough to worry about) is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.

So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.

Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.

* * *

Earlier today by me: Elizabeth Warren Is Running for President: Here Comes the Misogyny! and Malice Is the Agenda at the Border.

Here are some more things in the news today...

[Content Note: Murder; gun violence; racist eliminationism] Seven-year-old Jazmine Barnes was fatally shot after a white man in his 40s pulled up beside the car in which she was riding with her mother and opened fire on them from his red pickup truck. Her mother, LaPorsha Washington, who was injured in the shooting, has spent hours trying to figure out why this man killed her child and hurt her.

I've replayed this moment in my head over a million times, to see: Did I cut this man off? Did I make a wrong turn in front of him? Did I stop him from getting out of the Walmart, from whatever he was doing? Did I do anything wrong to cause this man to fire shots in my car? And I didn't. I didn't do anything. I didn't make a wrong turn, I didn't get over in his lane, I didn't do none of that. He fired off at us for no reason. None.
Absolutely heartbreaking. I understand, of course, why Washington is seeking to find a reason and probing her memory desperately to see if she could have done something differently, and I am so fucking sad and so fucking angry that she's been put in that position by the piece of shit who killed her daughter and injured her. Even if she had cut him off or made a wrong turn in front of him or whatever, it wouldn't justify what he did.

But road rage would maybe, somehow, be easier than the fact it seems very much like this "senseless" crime was a white supremacist murder. And it may not have been the first one committed by this man, who remains at large.

[CN: Video may autoplay at link] Staff at KTRK: Houston Activists Say Fatal Shooting of 7-Year-Old Girl Was Similar to Another Incident in 2017. "Some activists say a similar, unprovoked incident happened to a man named A'Vonta Williams a little more than a year ago. Williams was reportedly shot by a white man in a pickup truck while driving near that same Walmart on Wallisville. Activists say they don't believe the two shootings are a coincidence."

The police need to identify and find this man swiftly.

My condolences to Jazmine Barnes' family, friends, classmates, and community. I am so sorry.

* * *

Damian Paletta and Erica Werner at the Washington Post: Trump Falsely Claims Mexico Is Paying for Wall, Demands Taxpayer Money for Wall Ahead of Meeting with Democrats.
[Donald] Trump made two false claims about his demands for a new border wall just hours before he is set to meet with congressional leaders Wednesday, illustrating the White House's evasive approach as a government shutdown stretches on.

In a Twitter post Wednesday morning, Trump wrote that Mexico would be paying for the wall along the U.S. border under the parameters of a trade deal he has tentatively inked with Mexico and Canada. This is not true.

That deal has not been approved by Congress, which means the parameters of the pact are not in effect. And even if the trade agreement is approved, it would not in any way create a stream of money designated for the construction of a border wall.

The second false point in Trump's Twitter post Wednesday is his statement that "much of the Wall has already been fully renovated or built." This is also not true.

The U.S.-Mexico border is roughly 2,000 miles long. Trump's demand for $5.6 billion to build new sections of wall would finance 200 miles of wall, and less than 100 miles has already been constructed or renovated, according to Department of Homeland Security Officials.
Paul Krugman at the New York Times: The Trump Tax Cut: Even Worse Than You've Heard. "The story you mostly read runs something like this: The tax cut has caused corporations to bring some money home, but they've used it for stock buybacks rather than to raise wages, and the boost to growth has been modest. That doesn't sound great, but it's still better than the reality: No money has, in fact, been brought home, and the tax cut has probably reduced national income. Indeed, at least 90 percent of Americans will end up poorer thanks to that cut."

Carrie Johnson at NPR: Trump's Judicial Appointments Were Confirmed at Historic Pace in 2018. "The Trump administration more than doubled the number of judges it confirmed to federal appeals courts in 2018, exceeding the pace of the last five presidents and stocking the courts with lifetime appointees who could have profound consequences for civil rights, the environment, and government regulations. A new analysis by Lambda Legal, which advocates for the LGBT community, reports that five of the country's 12 circuit courts are now composed of more than 25 percent of Trump-appointed judges." Sob.

Paul Farhi at the Washington Post: Beyond 'No Comment': The White House Has No Response — at All — to Many Media Questions.
The New York Times published a powerful story last week about [Donald] Trump's growing isolation in the White House, with colorful details such as Trump's tendency to interrupt advisers during meetings to call them "freaking idiots" (except he doesn't use the word "freaking").

Asked to comment by the Times's reporters about this, the White House said nothing. It did not respond.

Similarly, it offered no response when The Washington Post asked the White House about Trump's false claim during a post-Christmas Day visit to U.S. troops in Iraq that he boosted military pay by 10 percent.

Reporters are used to officials who respond to their inquiries with a terse "no comment." This was typically the practice in prior presidential administrations when officials saw no strategic value in rebutting an unflattering story.

But as in so many things, the Trump administration is different. Instead of "no comment," Trump's press representatives often don't bother saying anything at all.

"This is the least responsive White House press operation I've ever dealt with by far," said Peter Baker, a veteran White House reporter for The New York Times and one of the co-authors of the story about Trump's isolation. "There are certainly individuals there who are professional and try to be helpful when they can, and I appreciate their efforts, I really do. But as a whole, I've learned not to expect answers even to basic questions."

Adds Baker, "I don't know why that is. I don't take it personally. But it's a lost opportunity on their part to get their side of the story out."
That's a very telling quote. Baker, a White House reporter for a major newspaper, is seemingly incurious about figuring out why the White House is unprecedentedly hostile to answering basic questions, and his primary concern is for the administration and their "lost opportunity" to use the media to "get their side of the story out," rather than expressing any concern for the public who lacks accountability from their own government. Depressing.


Jamiles Lartey at the Guardian: Mitt Romney: Trump's Biggest Failure Is a Lack of Character in Leading 'Divided' Nation. "Romney praised Trump's tax policies, stance on China, and appointment of conservative judges but said they were 'mainstream' Republican policies. Since Trump's rise, Romney has been one in a long list of traditionalist Republicans who have publicly bristled at Trump's decorum and leadership style, while generally supporting his policy goals." A perfect summary.

Let me be even more blunt: Romney loves Trump's malice, but hates his vulgarity. PRIORITIES.


I don't give a drip of shit what Mitt Romney has to say about anything, least of all Donald Trump, but I do care what Harry Reid has to say.


By the way, I agree with my friend Sarah Kendzior that the New York Times interview with Reid was a massive wasted opportunity to ask him some tough questions about Russian interference in the 2016 election and related Republican obstructionism.

* * *

Josh Kovensky at TPM: Filing in Patten Case Deepens Mystery About His Cooperation with the Feds. "A mystery filing in the case of W. Sam Patten, the D.C. lobbyist who pleaded guilty to acting as an unregistered foreign agent in August, adds a curious wrinkle to what has generally been regarded as a relatively minor case. ...The fact that Patten's status report is entirely under seal could suggest that Patten, who has been seen as a more marginal figure in the foreign lobbying world, may in fact have more value to prosecutors, including special counsel Robert Mueller, than previously realized."

Staff at the BBC: New Year 2019: U.S. Military Apologises for Bomb Tweet. "U.S. Strategic Command, which oversees America's nuclear arsenal, has apologised for a tweet that said it was ready to 'drop something much, much bigger' than New York's Times Square ball. The message, posted on New Year's Eve, was accompanied by a video showing a B-2 bomber dropping weapons. Strategic Command later deleted the tweet, saying it was 'in poor taste,' and replaced it with an apology." Fucking hell.

[CN: Nativism; child abuse] Elham Khatami at ThinkProgress: Surveillance Videos at Arizona Migrant Shelter Show Alleged Abuse of Children. "Staff members at a migrant shelter in Arizona apparently dragged, hit, and shoved children, according to surveillance videos obtained by the Arizona Republic last week under a state public records law. Although the Maricopa Sheriff's Office initially said the videos showed no grounds for criminal investigation, the office reversed course Sunday, referring the case to a local district attorney."

[CN: LGBTQ hatred] Jessica Mason Pieklo at Rewire.News: Employees Can Be Fired for Being LGBTQ in 26 States. Will the Supreme Court Make That Even Worse? "The Supreme Court on Friday will consider taking three cases that could determine whether an employer can legally discriminate against employees for being LGBTQ. If the Court agrees to hear some, or all, of the petitions, it will be testing both the strength of employment discrimination law under Title VII and retired Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy's LGBTQ rights legacy. ...Currently 26 states do not expressly prohibit sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination in employment. Should the Supreme Court determine federal law does not protect LGBTQ employees, that would leave workers in those states even more vulnerable to on-the-job discrimination."

[CN: Homophobia; harassment] Relatedly... Savas Abadsidis at Towleroad: Drug Research Scientist Says He was Harassed for Being Gay. "A former research scientist alleges in a lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Co. that he was harassed and discriminated against because he is gay. Jeffrey A. Willy says he 'endured harassment, a hostile work environment, and discrimination.' He left the company in September 2018. The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Indianapolis."

[CN: Environmental harm] Yessenia Funes at Earther: Trump's EPA Wants to Prove That Limiting Toxic Mercury Emissions Is a Giant Waste of Money. "Whispers that the EPA began might roll back the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which former President Barack Obama implemented in 2011 to limit the amount of the toxic metal power plants can spew, first surfaced in October. But electrical utilities pushed back, as they had already spent billions working to comply with the rule, reports Bloomberg. So instead of undoing outright this particular rule, the agency wants to take a closer look at the cost-benefit analysis that supports it under the Clean Air Act. The EPA is hoping to determine that the rule is not 'appropriate and necessary,' a legal term that considers on whether the benefits outweigh the cost of a rule."

And finally, if you haven't heard the latest from abusive dirtbag Louis CK, consider yourself lucky and move on. If you have, and want to know my feelings about it, here you go:


What have you been reading that we need to resist today?

Open Wide...

We Resist: Day 699

a black bar with the word RESIST in white text

One of the difficulties in resisting the Trump administration, the Republican Congressional majority, and Republican state legislatures (plus the occasional non-Republican who obliges us to resist their nonsense, too, like we don't have enough to worry about) is keeping on top of the sheer number of horrors, indignities, and normalization of the aggressively abnormal that they unleash every single day.

So here is a daily thread for all of us to share all the things that are going on, thus crowdsourcing a daily compendium of the onslaught of conservative erosion of our rights and our very democracy.

Stay engaged. Stay vigilant. Resist.

* * *

Earlier today by me: This Is Why Pelosi Has Earned Her Job and Facebook Allowed Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Netflix, Sony, Spotify, Yahoo, and Others to Access Users' Data and Trump and Giuliani Are Lying Liars, as Usual.

Here are some more things in the news today...

Big foreign policy news today, as Donald Trump has declared: "We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency."

Which was preface for the disclosure that the U.S. "is considering a total withdrawal of U.S. forces from Syria."

A few problems, detailed by MSNBC's Richard Engel:

This is a very significant moment. There are many allies who will see this as a great American betrayal. What is happening right now, when you look at the president's tweet, when you look at statements to NBC News by military officials, this administration — the president — is going into the holidays and taking a "mission accomplished" moment, saying the U.S. under [Donald] Trump defeated ISIS, so now it's time to withdraw a significant portion of the U.S. troops in Syria, out of the country, out of harm's way, if not all of the troops.

And, on a certain level, ISIS has been pushed back. It hasn't been entirely defeated, but it has been pushed back. U.S. military officials say that the fight against ISIS in Syria isn't over, and then there is the other problem about our allies that we've been fighting with in Syria.

We have had — the U.S. military has had a very close partner in a Kurdish-led force, the YPG, also known as the SDF. This is a Kurdish-led force that has been fighting hand in glove with U.S. troops for about four years now. They have lost thousands of men; thousands of women fighters have also been on the front lines; in the last four years, fighting alongside U.S. troops, they've been able to carve out a successful mini-state right on the Turkish border. With U.S. troops leaving, that mini-state would be at risk. Turkey already says it wants to invade it.

So, not only is the fight not quite over against ISIS, according to the U.S. special envoy who deals with ISIS, according to U.S. military commanders that I've been speaking with; it would also put this very close ally that has sacrificed so much for the United States in a position of probably unsustainable peril.

[Female anchor offscreen says: "And Richard, big picture here: This is another example of [Donald] Trump taking one view; his own military taking another; and this conflict, or clash, that we've seen before on other issues related to the military, in this administration."]

So, this almost happened about six months ago. That's when I went into this region in northern Syria. The troops on the ground, the Kurdish-led partners on the ground, were very concerned, because [Donald] Trump, six months ago, was making statements like, the war against ISIS was finished; it's time to leave the area; the U.S. no longer has any purpose in being there.

And the military pushed back. There were a lot of private conversations; there were a lot of people talking to the president and those around him, saying, hey, look, I know you're the commander in chief, sir, but you might want to consider this — we're not quite finished with the war on ISIS; our allies will be destroyed by the Turks. And the administration backed off.

This time, with that tweet, with the number of comments that we've seen coming out, right out of the gate this morning, it doesn't seem like the White House is willing to back off again.
There's a whole lot there, but I want to emphasize this: "It would also put this very close ally that has sacrificed so much for the United States in a position of probably unsustainable peril. ...Our allies will be destroyed." This, of course, would not be the first time that the U.S. has betrayed Kurdish fighters — a grim legacy left out of the recent remembrances of George H.W. Bush.

Also, once again, I will observe that "working with Russia to defeat ISIS in Syria" was a possible tell about Russian influence within campaigns in 2016. And here is the final endgame of that fuckery: The U.S. will leave Syria, declaring ISIS "defeated," abandoning Syria to chaos which Vladimir Putin will further exploit.

Meanwhile: The U.S. has reportedly approved a $3.5 billion patriot missile sale to Turkey. Holy fuck.

Also: The U.S. Treasury Department is reportedly removing Russian aluminum giant Rusal from the sanctions list. Good lord.

I am so profoundly shaken and upset by all of this. I am so sorry for the Syrian people who wanted none of this. I am so worried about where refugees will find safe harbor. I am so angry at Donald Trump, and every person who has abetted him.

* * *

Erica Werner, John Wagner, and Damian Paletta at the Washington Post: Senate to Pass Bill That Would Keep Government Open, Deny Trump Wall Funding. "The Senate prepared Wednesday to pass a short-term spending bill that would keep the government open through the New Year but deny [Donald] Trump the money he wanted for his border wall — a stark retreat for Republicans in their final days in control of Congress. ...The outcome would temporarily break an impasse that threatened to shutter large portions of the government this weekend and send hundreds of thousands of federal workers home without pay just before Christmas. Trump has signaled his support for the plan but 'can change his mind if he wants to,' said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican. A senior White House aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss the administration's position, said the plan is for Trump to sign the legislation."

Trump had better fucking sign this shit. It would be just like him to pull an unexpected reversal and refuse to sign it, throwing the entire federal government into chaos and harming federal workers right before the holidays. I hope, for once, he abandons his urge for malice and just signs the goddamn bill.

* * *

[Content Note: Nativism; abuse. Covers entire section.]

John Stanton at BuzzFeed: Another Migrant Girl Nearly Died After She Was Detained in New Mexico by the Border Patrol. "A young girl who was in the custody of U.S. Customs and Border Protection went into cardiac arrest in November at a hospital in El Paso where she was resuscitated, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection official told members of Congress on Tuesday. The incident occurred in the same CBP sector where a 7-year-old Guatemalan asylum-seeker, Jakelin Caal, fell ill [and died] earlier this month."

Speaking of Jakelin Caal, I hope every person who felt compelled to sneer that her father is responsible for her death, because he took her on a journey through the desert in search of a better life, reads this. Elisabeth Malkin at the New York Times: In Home Village of Girl Who Died in U.S. Custody, Poverty Drives Migration. "Ms. Maquin has a simple explanation for why her husband joined a growing number of villagers and made the dangerous journey north: the absolute lack of alternatives in this lush but remote part of the country. Indigenous communities like theirs have endured centuries of poverty, exclusion, and repression by economic and political elites. ...Mr. Caal, like so many other migrants, may well have heard — from others who made the trip, or from the smuggler he paid to take him to the border — that he would have a better chance of remaining in the United States if he arrived with a child."

Julia Ainsley and Jacob Soboroff at NBC News: Advocates: Trump Admin Lying When It Says It Can't Process Any More Asylum Seekers. "Immigration advocates at the southern U.S. border say the Trump administration is lying when it says it's at 'capacity' and can't process any more asylum seekers at the ports of entry where migrants can legally claim asylum. On Twitter Monday night, U.S. Customs and Border Protection said 'the processing system at CBP and our partner agencies has hit capacity.' ...But Kara Lynum, a lawyer with American Immigration Lawyers Association who was held outside the Otay Mesa border station with the 15 Honduran immigrants Monday, said the station was not full."

Tom Phillips at the Guardian: Mexico Investigates After Teens from Migrant Caravan Killed Near U.S. Border. "Two teenage members of the migrant caravan have reportedly been murdered in Tijuana, a stark reminder of the dangers facing the tens of thousands of young Central Americans who try to reach the United States each year. The Honduran victims, aged 16 and 17, reportedly hailed from the violence-stricken city of San Pedro Sula, where the caravan set out from in mid-October before cutting north-west through Mexico towards the U.S. border." That's the cost of the Trump Regime's lies about being unable to process asylum-seekers.

Rebekah Entralgo at ThinkProgress: Members of Congress Caged at the Border While Standing with Asylum Seekers. "Two members of Congress, along with 15 asylum seekers and leaders from immigrant activist group Families Belong Together, were caged together overnight at the Otay Mesa port of entry near San Diego. The group intended to observe how detained migrants are treated when attempting to claim asylum. In a statement to ThinkProgress, Families Belong Together said the incident amounted to the Trump administration making a 'mockery of our long-held democratic values and our legal process.' ...According to [Democratic Reps. Nanette Barragan and Jimmy Gomez, who both represent the greater Los Angeles area], CBP agents routinely gave them a hard time, making snide comments and jokes at the expense of the asylum seekers." Seethe.


I'm so, so glad that Shaima Swileh is going to get to see her son, but this is no solution — granting exceptions to people whose tragic stories go viral. The Muslim ban must be lifted.

* * *

In good resistance news... Elham Khatami at ThinkProgress: Nevada Just Became the First State with a Women-Majority Legislature. "Nevada made history on Wednesday as the country's first woman-majority state legislature, after Las Vegas county officials appointed two women to fill recently-vacated seats in the state Assembly. The appointment of the two women — Democrats Beatrice Duran and Rochelle Nguyen, who is also the first Asian American woman to serve in her district — brings the total number of female-held seats in the Assembly to 23, or 55 percent of the 42-seat chamber. Women hold nine of the 21 seats in the Nevada state Senate, meaning 34 of the 63 total seats in the legislature are women-held. According to Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), Nevada is the first state not only to have a female-majority legislature, but to even reach the 50 percent threshold of overall female representation."

And back to shitty news... [CN: Sexual harassment; racism; homophobia] Kate Riga at TPM: Ex-News Chiefs Booted for Sexual Harassment, Racism Team Up to Create New Outlet. "Ousted NPR and Fox News chiefs, booted due to sexual harassment allegations and accusations of racism and homophobia, respectively, have been recruited by former Fox News executive Ken LaCorte to head a new 'fair and balanced' digital news outlet. According to a Tuesday Politico report, Michael Oreskes formerly of NPR and John Moody formerly of Fox News will play a key role in assigning 'importance' to stories to avoid creating a partisan silo on the new site, LaCorte News. LaCorte told Politico that he is wholly unconcerned about the men's pasts, considering their ouster an overreaction."

Staff at the Feminist Newswire: Trump Administration Rescinds Anti-discriminatory School Discipline Policies. "Today the Trump Administration announced it would rescind parts of the Obama administration's 'Rethink Discipline' school policies; policies that ensured that minority students were not unfairly targeted for harsher punishments or disciplinary practices. The Trump Administration argued that the policies' efforts to reduce discriminatory punishments contributed to the increase of violence in schools. The Trump Administration created the School Safety Commission, led by Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos, after the Parkland shooting. Instead of focusing on gun violence and gun control, the Commission targeted Obama era school discipline policies that protect minority students from discriminatory discipline practices, even though the Parkland shooter was a white male."

What have you been reading that we need to resist today?

Open Wide...

An Observation

"Controversial" is a word that has long been used by the press to cover all manner of sins — and to maintain an illusion of objectivity by not taking a side on the "controversy," as though not condemning abuse is a neutral position. But its current service to bothsideserism is exponentially gross.

Donald Trump and the various members of his vile administration are not "controversial figures." His policies of malice are not "controversial." People in power who perpetrate abuse and the people who object to it and/or are harmed by it are not two sides of a "controversy."

Using "controversy" (or "debate," or variations thereof) to affect neutrality is bullshit. There is no neutral in Trump's vast abuses. There is only condemning and resisting it, or abetting it, either actively or passively.

It takes some hefty denial to manage to convince oneself that weasel words like "controversy" are somehow superior to the complicity of silence.

[Also on Twitter, beginning here.]

Open Wide...

I Write Letters

Dear Members of the Political Press Who Should Definitely Know Better by Now:

1. Both sides are not the same. Please stop pretending that they are. This is a dangerous game. It's been a dangerous game you've been playing for many years, which is one of the significant reasons we've landed on the precipice on which we currently find our democracy precariously perched. To downplay the eliminationism of the right under the auspices of maintaining "objectivity" is not objective at all — it has been and continues to be a profoundly dishonest misrepresentation of reality.

2. Donald Trump is very serious about his vile nativist agenda. Please stop pretending that he isn't. He entered politics with an aggressive and relentless birther campaign against President Obama, and he has consistently engaged in rank nativism ever since. He's fucking serious.

3. This is not a normal presidency. Please get the fuck on board with that fact already. We're two years in, and Trump has repeatedly demonstrated he has zero desire to be constrained by the rule of law. Just because something is not legal — overriding a Constitutional amendment with an executive order, say — doesn't mean that Trump isn't going to try it. Stop pretending that "it's not legal" matters to this president and his party. The whole reason that Mitch McConnell held open 100+ federal court seats plus a SCOTUS seat for the next GOP president is so the laws won't have to matter for Republicans anymore.

This is not a complete list of shit you need to fix tout de suite, but it's what is on my mind this morning.

Sincerely and urgently,
Liss

Open Wide...

Trump Threatens "Whoever" with Nuclear War, and It Barely Makes the News

Yesterday, Donald Trump was on his way to Marine One when a reporter shouted a question at him about increasing the United States' nuclear arsenal. He stopped, came back, and launched into an incredible, broad threat to deploy nuclear weapons.

Transcript:

Female reporter off-screen yells, over the sound of the helicopter: Sir, on the arms treaty, Mr. President! Are you prepared to build up the U.S. nuclear arsenal — you said you're gonna pull out of the arms deal? Treaty?

Trump shouts back: Until people come to their senses, we will build it up. [The reporter starts to ask another question; Trump holds up his hand and walks back in reporters' direction.] Until people come to their senses— Russia has not adhered to the agreement. This should have been done years ago. Until people come to their senses— We have more money than anybody else by far. We'll build it up — until they come to their senses. When they do, then we'll all be smart and we'll all stop and — by the way, not only stop; we'll reduce. Which I would love to do, but right now they have not adhered to the agreement.

Reporter: Is that a threat to Vladimir Putin?

Trump: It's a threat to whoever you want — and it includes China, and it includes Russia, and it includes anybody else that wants to play that game. You can't do that. You can't play that game on me.

Male reporter: You want more nukes, is what you're saying.

Female reporter: Are you actually going to withdraw, or— [crosstalk]

Trump: [crosstalk] —until they get smart. Until they get smart. They have not adhered to the spirit of that agreement or to the agreement itself — Russia. China's not included in the agreement; they should be included in the agreement. Until they get smart, there will be nobody that's gonna be even close to us.

Female reporter: Have you talked to our allies?

Trump: No, I have not. [crosstalk; male reporter asks inaudible question] I don't have to speak to 'em. I don't have to speak— I'm terminating the agreement, because they violated the agreement. I'm terminating the agreement.

Female reporter: When?! When?

Trump: Okay, thank you, everybody. [walks away]
So, there is a lot of news here. Trump says definitively that he is terminating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia, and, although his word is garbage, it's still notable that he did say without equivocation that he's terminating a treaty which has been in effect since the Cold War.

Further, he not only vows to increase the U.S.'s nuclear capacity, but threatens to use those nukes on foreign adversaries — including China, amidst ongoing provocations of China by his administration — and broadens that threat to "whoever you want," on the basis of foreign states "being smart" and/or "coming to their senses."

All of this is extraordinary.

And yet it barely made headlines late yesterday or this morning. I have seen far more headlines about Trump's announcement that he has stopped calling Ted Cruz "Lyin' Ted" and now calls him "Beautiful Ted" than I have about Trump's announcement that he will increase the U.S. nuclear arsenal and nuke "whoever you want" unless they get "smart."

(And I certainly haven't seen any serious discussion about how this belligerent posturing about nuclear annihilation actually benefits both Russia and China, in different ways.)

The press still hasn't learned any lessons from 2016, and neither have most U.S. consumers of political media. Which, in addition to being totally depressing, is profoundly frightening. It's already too late to be learning these lessons.

And no one knows that better than Donald Trump.

Open Wide...

So It Turns out That Trump Server Communicating with Russia Was a Big Deal After All (No Kidding)

A lot has happened in the last couple of years, so you'll be forgiven if you don't recall the story about the unusual link between a computer server at the Trump Organization and a Russian bank during the campaign.

I first mentioned it in November of 2016, a week before the election, after Franklin Foer wrote an important piece on the subject for Slate, "Was a Trump Server Communicating with Russia?" — and then mentioned it again in March of 2017, when Pamela Brown and Jose Pagliery at CNN reported that the FBI was investigating the server connection, which Foer had described thus in his piece:

The researchers quickly dismissed their initial fear that the logs represented a malware attack. The communication wasn't the work of bots. The irregular pattern of server lookups actually resembled the pattern of human conversation — conversations that began during office hours in New York and continued during office hours in Moscow. It dawned on the researchers that this wasn't an attack, but a sustained relationship between a server registered to the Trump Organization and two servers registered to an entity called Alfa Bank.
As I said, if none of this is ringing a bell, you're surely not alone. Especially since the political press largely decided there was nothing to that particular story.

Whooooooooooooops.

Dexter Filkins at the New Yorker: Was There a Connection Between a Russian Bank and the Trump Campaign?
Examining records for the Trump domain, Max's group discovered D.N.S. lookups from a pair of servers owned by Alfa Bank, one of the largest banks in Russia. Alfa Bank's computers were looking up the address of the Trump server nearly every day. There were dozens of lookups on some days and far fewer on others, but the total number was notable: Between May and September, Alfa Bank looked up the Trump Organization's domain more than two thousand times. "We were watching this happen in real time — it was like watching an airplane fly by," Max said. "And we thought, Why the hell is a Russian bank communicating with a server that belongs to the Trump Organization, and at such a rate?"

Only one other entity seemed to be reaching out to the Trump Organization's domain with any frequency: Spectrum Health, of Grand Rapids, Michigan. Spectrum Health is closely linked to the DeVos family; Richard DeVos, Jr., is the chairman of the board, and one of its hospitals is named after his mother. His wife, Betsy DeVos, was appointed Secretary of Education by Donald Trump. Her brother, Erik Prince, is a Trump associate who has attracted the scrutiny of Robert Mueller, the special counsel investigating Trump's ties to Russia. Mueller has been looking into Prince's meeting, following the election, with a Russian official in the Seychelles, at which he reportedly discussed setting up a back channel between Trump and the Russian President, Vladimir Putin. (Prince maintains that the meeting was "incidental.") In the summer of 2016, Max and the others weren't aware of any of this. "We didn't know who DeVos was," Max said.

The D.N.S. records raised vexing questions. Why was the Trump Organization's domain, set up to send mass-marketing e-mails, conducting such meagre activity? And why were computers at Alfa Bank and Spectrum Health trying to reach a server that didn't seem to be doing anything? After analyzing the data, Max said, "We decided this was a covert communication channel."

...In August, 2016, Max decided to reveal the data that he and his colleagues had assembled. "If the covert communications were real, this potential threat to our country needed to be known before the election," he said. After some discussion, he and his lawyer decided to hand over the findings to Eric Lichtblau, of the New York Times. Lichtblau met with Max, and began to look at the data.

Lichtblau had done breakthrough reporting on National Security Agency surveillance, and he knew that Max's findings would require sophisticated analysis. D.N.S. lookups are metadata — records that indicate computer interactions but don't necessarily demonstrate human communication. Lichtblau shared the data with three leading computer scientists, and, like Max, they were struck by the unusual traffic on the server. As Lichtblau talked to experts, he became increasingly convinced that the data suggested a substantive connection. "Not only is there clearly something there but there's clearly something that someone has gone to great lengths to conceal," he told me. Jean Camp, of Indiana University, had also vetted some of the data. "These people who should not be communicating are clearly communicating," she said. In order to encourage discussion among analysts, Camp posted a portion of the raw data on her website.

As Lichtblau wrote a draft of an article for the Times, Max's lawyer contacted the F.B.I. to alert agents that a story about Trump would be running in a national publication, and to pass along the data. A few days later, an F.B.I. official called Lichtblau and asked him to come to the Bureau's headquarters, in Washington, D.C.

At the meeting, in late September, 2016, a roomful of officials told Lichtblau that they were looking into potential Russian interference in the election. According to a source who was briefed on the investigation, the Bureau had intelligence from informants suggesting a possible connection between the Trump Organization and Russian banks, but no data. The information from Max's group could be a significant advance. "The F.B.I. was looking for people in the United States who were helping Russia to influence the election," the source said. "It was very important to the Bureau. It was urgent."

The F.B.I. officials asked Lichtblau to delay publishing his story, saying that releasing the news could jeopardize their investigation. As the story sat, Dean Baquet, the Times' executive editor, decided that it would not suffice to report the existence of computer contacts without knowing their purpose. Lichtblau disagreed, arguing that his story contained important news: that the F.B.I. had opened a counterintelligence investigation into Russian contacts with Trump's aides. "It was a really tense debate," Baquet told me. "If I were the reporter, I would have wanted to run it, too. It felt like there was something there." But, with the election looming, Baquet thought that he could not publish the story without being more confident in its conclusions.
There is much more at the link.

Foer notes on Twitter that Filkins "lands at about the same conclusion I did a few years back: This wasn't random." And further: "Dean Baquet didn't run the Times story on the subject — and he slammed my piece on Alfa to @ErikWemple. But he now says, 'It felt like there was something there.'"

In other words, the New York Times, who it should always be noted were running plenty of bullshit stories about Hillary Clinton's email server, decided not to run a critically important story linking Trump and Russia a week before the election, because editor Dean Baquet wasn't "confident in it conclusions," even though it "felt like there was something there."

Because there was.

Open Wide...